I'd like to get a feeling from others about how valuable they think it is to have a bunch of change to get pylint happy. Personally, I abandoned this work a while ago being ever more frustrated with pylint in a lot of areas. Having used it (or specifically not used it) in other large projects since, I think it's value is extremely limited. For example, it will likely be hopelessly confused by bitwise and any code that uses it. I've seen it employed most usefully in a situation where it is simply used against a specific patch to try to gauge whether it "makes things worse or not".

Unless we pick things we care about specifically for a whitelist of issues, I'd rather not see another hundred or so patches to try to trivially appease pylint.

Thoughts?

--Dan

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CHIRP - Feature #159] (In Progress) Get pylint happy with chirp Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 03:46:55 -0700 From: donotreply@danplanet.com

Issue #159 has been updated by Zach Welch.

* Tracker changed from Bug to Feature * Status changed from New to In Progress * Assignee changed from Dan Smith to Zach Welch * Target version set to 0.5.0 * % Done changed from 20 to 0 * Chirp Version changed from 0.3.0 to daily

I have a couple of patches in the works to add pylint to the cpep8 script (see #2355 http://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/2355). This allows the source code to be automatically scanned as part of run_all_tests.sh. It includes a new blacklist to exclude files that are not yet compliant.

Unfortunately, not a single file was pylint compliant when I started looking at this task. I was able to get a couple of files fixed up without too much pain, but most of the modules have brutally long lists of issues (far beyond what was flagged/fixed by pep8).

On the bright side, pylint is clearly superior to pep8 in terms of completeness. For example, it already helped me find a latent error in the new logger module. I think that we will be better off with this kind of checking in place.

That said, there are points of contention between the pep8 tool and pylint, so I have disabled a couple of checks that pep8 already says we pass (e.g. line continuation alignment, multiple spaces after commas). There are likely additional checks that need to be disabled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feature #159: Get pylint happy with chirp http://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/159#change-6577

* Author: Dan Smith * Status: In Progress * Priority: Normal * Assignee: Zach Welch * Category: * Target version: 0.5.0 * Chirp Version: daily * Model affected: (All models)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://chirp.danplanet.com/my/account